Israel’s Herzog yet to decide on who should form government as Eisenkot secures significant backing

In Israel, an endorsement means a Knesset lawmaker tells the president which candidate they support as the person who should receive the first chance to build a government. It is a political signal, not proof that a coalition already exists. The president considers these declarations while assessing who can form a stable coalition.

Here, 67 lawmakers endorsed Eisenkot and 46 endorsed Netanyahu. Yet Herzog warned that mutual vetoes existed between and within the blocs. A party can support a candidate initially while refusing to join that candidate’s government or demanding conditions.

That distinction matters because Israel’s 120-seat Knesset needs a workable governing coalition, not merely a large endorsement total. Arab-majority parties backed Eisenkot, but their positions differed: the Joint List suggested outside support, while Ra’am said it would join. Eisenkot also required recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, national service acceptance, and a denunciation of Hamas.

Eisenkot had endorsements from 67 of the Knesset’s 120 elected lawmakers. Netanyahu had 46. Since more than half of 120 is 61, Eisenkot’s endorsement total was above the basic majority threshold, while Netanyahu’s was below it.

The figures came from several days of consultations with President Isaac Herzog. They did not mean Eisenkot automatically controlled 67 votes in every parliamentary decision. The article notes that parties and blocs held mutual vetoes, making the path to a government uncertain.

The seat picture was also fragmented. Netanyahu’s coalition lost its majority, falling from 68 to 53 seats. Eisenkot’s Change bloc held 48 seats. Parties representing Israeli Palestinians held 19 seats, including 11 for the Joint List and eight for Ra’am. Their support could determine whether Eisenkot could actually assemble a governing coalition.

Endorsements show initial political support, but forming a government requires parties to cooperate on a shared coalition. Eisenkot’s larger endorsement total therefore did not settle whether he could win enough dependable backing for legislation and governing. President Herzog specifically cited mutual vetoes between and within the blocs.

The seat distribution explains the difficulty. Eisenkot’s Change bloc had 48 seats, while parties representing Israeli Palestinians had 19. Together, they could reach a majority, but the Arab parties did not offer identical support. The Joint List discussed supporting an opposition from outside, while Ra’am said it would join an Eisenkot government.

Eisenkot also set conditions for cooperation. Arab parties would have to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, accept compulsory national service, and denounce Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Those demands could narrow his coalition options, even with more endorsements than Netanyahu.

Israel’s president does not normally run the government, but plays a crucial role after an inconclusive election. After consulting elected parties, the president chooses the candidate judged to have the best initial chance of building a stable coalition. That choice begins the next stage of coalition negotiations.

Isaac Herzog met delegations from the major blocs, Palestinian Israeli parties, and other small parties. Although Eisenkot received more endorsements, Herzog said the results were not decisive because blocs could veto one another. He planned to hold further personal talks with some party leaders over the Israeli weekend.

Herzog said he would announce his choice on Sunday. His intervention matters because neither candidate had a clear route to power. Netanyahu remained prime minister in a caretaker government, while Eisenkot needed to turn broad but conditional support into a functioning coalition and avoid another election.

Arab-majority parties became potential kingmakers because Netanyahu’s nationalist-religious coalition lost its majority and Eisenkot’s Change bloc held only 48 seats. The Arab parties together held 19 seats, enough to decide whether a candidate could approach or pass the 61-seat majority needed in the 120-member Knesset.

The 19 seats were split between the Joint List, with 11, and the more conservative Islamist Ra’am, with eight. Both reported backing Eisenkot, but they offered different forms of support. The Joint List suggested outside backing through tactical voting, while Ra’am said it would join a new Eisenkot government.

Their influence also reflected a major turnout change. Participation among Arab Israelis, who make up 20% of Israel’s population, more than doubled to about 80%. Their leaders said voters wanted change after racism, discrimination, crime, and exclusion under the current coalition, despite disagreements with Eisenkot.

A candidate must successfully assemble a governing coalition to replace the caretaker government. If neither Eisenkot nor Netanyahu can do that, the political deadlock continues rather than producing a new administration. The article states that another election must be held if no candidate succeeds.

In the meantime, Netanyahu remains prime minister in a caretaker government. His coalition lost its governing majority, falling from 68 to 53 seats, while Eisenkot’s bloc had 48. The remaining parties, especially the Arab-majority parties with 19 seats, could determine whether a coalition is possible.

President Herzog was urging parties to prevent another election. He cited security and diplomatic challenges, a changing region, and internal divisions. His consultations and planned Sunday decision were therefore an effort to identify the candidate most likely to break the deadlock, not a guarantee that the next government would be formed.

Under proportional representation, parties receive legislative seats broadly according to their share of the vote. That can give several parties meaningful representation instead of producing one dominant party. In Israel’s 120-seat Knesset, a government therefore often needs agreements among multiple parties to reach a majority.

This election shows the mechanism clearly. Netanyahu’s coalition fell from 68 to 53 seats, while Eisenkot’s Change bloc had 48. The remaining 19 seats belonged to Arab-majority parties. Since neither large bloc could govern alone, smaller parties gained leverage by setting conditions or withholding support.

Coalition bargaining can then produce deadlock when parties disagree or veto one another. The Joint List preferred outside support, while Ra’am was willing to join an Eisenkot government. Herzog described mutual vetoes within and between blocs, illustrating why proportional representation can make coalition formation both necessary and difficult. If negotiations fail, another election follows.